• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT: question about legality of "license check" in NC

WTFOVER

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
111
Location
WNC
So your saying we should just bend over, and take it up where the sun don't shine? No thanks.

I'll prefer to lend my support to those that intend on making it illegal for checkpoints to exist, period, as they have no RAS to even be there to begin with. Checkpoints are extremely inefficient, and all they do is annoy a bunch of law abiding citizens. Yes, there are some dumb enough to go thru a checkpoint that is either high or drunk, or whatever else, but those aren't very common in the grand scheme of things.

All checkpoints do now is to remind the general public that there is a police force, and they aren't afraid to mobilize against the people.

Your free to do what you like, but within the last 10 years there hasn't been maybe 5 cases that went to the USSC that they haven't ruled in favor of LEO. People have a better chance of getting weed legalized then checkpoints stopped. But your free to keep on fighting, I just choose to fight other battles such as gun rights, etc
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Check point roadblocks are posted in the media. Pay attention and stay out of the area.

So it would be legal for them to force me to drive up to an hour out of my way do to the fact that they advertised their intent to establish a ROADBLOCK (check point) on the main road between my location and my destination--- a checkpoint location that is 10 miles from another paved road....

Don't laugh....

Last year in UTAH COUNTY, UTAH there was a sobriety checkpoint in a popular canyon near American Fork, Utah that was 15 miles up the canyon on the only paved road IN THE CANYON. They stopped every vehicle travelling each direction and their was NO way to avoid the roadblock exiting the canyon except to turn around and take the 1 hour drive to exit into PROVO canyon. Check out the map on this Scenic loop drive UTAH hyw 92, known as Alpine Loop between American Fork and Provo, Utah.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Your free to do what you like, but within the last 10 years there hasn't been maybe 5 cases that went to the USSC that they haven't ruled in favor of LEO. People have a better chance of getting weed legalized then checkpoints stopped. But your free to keep on fighting, I just choose to fight other battles such as gun rights, etc

Gun Rights are ONLY 1 battle in the War to SAVE our Country and Constitution. Any intrusion must be resisted with ALL legal means!
 

Smith45acp

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
434
Location
NC
What more do you need than this:

Is a checkpoint / roadblock a seizure? Yes.
Are the stops suspicion less? Yes.


So because the officer decided to enforce the law and stop you because of your tint its a fishing trip?

If my having too-dark tint was the reason for the stop, then why didn't officer 1 test it, and why didn't officer 2 write a ticket for the violation?

You act like I just came up with the idea of pretextual stops. Give me a break.

I'm not going to argue statistics, but if the numbers really interest you look around. Here's a good start:
http://www.checkpointusa.org

I say forget about the statistics, I was foolish to even mention them (see my signature). The much more important question is, "Does this make me more free or less free?" and ALWAYS leaning to the power of the people when the balance of additional governmental control (some call this public interest) vs. individual liberty is not overwhelmingly obvious as one or the other.

Even if "to checkpoint or not to checkpoint" was a close call in that sense of balance, and I don't believe it is, the decision should be easy given that it's close.

"To require individuals to obtain pilot licenses or not?" That's a call that is not as close you see?

If we all allowed random searches of our homes by police K9's I bet we could get a crap-ton of drugs off the streets. Here I'll address some likely concerns:
-The K9 handler will ONLY be looking for illegal drugs, so don't worry about an ever expanding scope, that would be crazy.
-You won't even have to be home
-The handler and K9 will put on 'booties' before they come in, oh and the dog breed will be hypoallergenic
If you have any other concerns of privacy or inconvenience I will address them with the same sugarcoating and completely BS responses.


I'm just sharing how I feel about these issues, and unfortunately my feelings are much stronger than my expectations of ever feeling true liberty.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP If we all allowed random searches of our homes by police K9's I bet we could get a crap-ton of drugs off the streets.

Oh, you should read Sitz. The court makes the statement that it serves a strong government interest to eradicate drunk driving.

Get that? Eradicate. They will never eradicate the problem. It can't be eradicated. There will always be some knuckleheads who ingest something and then drive. But, as long as eradication is the government's "interest", there will always be more and more intrusive measures justified in the attempt to eradicate. And, since none--not one--of those measures actually will eradicate drunk driving, the next more intrusive measure is already guaranteed to be approved.

Sorry. Didn't mean to ruin your sleep tonight.
 

Smith45acp

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
434
Location
NC
^ Exactly

We live in a world that is imperfect, always has been always will be. I'm not suggesting we give up on law enforcement, I would just like to feel perfectly free in this imperfect world. Trust your citizens (those folks who pay the bills and place great trust in you to uphold the Constitution) until one gives you a good reason not to. Then deal with him or her instead of holding all to that lowest denominator.
 

Kivuli

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
208
Location
North Carolina
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Delaware vs. Prouse that the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers, acting on their own initiative, from randomly stopping vehicles for the sole purpose of checking whether the driver has a proper driver's license and a vehicle registration. Therefore officers ordinarily may not stop a vehicle unless they have at least reasonable sucpicion that a driver or occupant has committed or is committing a criminal offense (or infraction).
However, the Court indicated that a systematic roadblock type of stop to check licenses and registrations is permissible if all cars are stopped or if some patterned method of stopping (for example, every tenth car) is devised. North Carolina appellate courts have upheld driver's license checks in several cases decided since the Prouse ruling. Officers in these cases either obtained supervisory approval to conduct the checkpoint or followed their agency's written guidelines in conducting the checkpoint. They also checked every car that approached the checkpoint unless their law enforcement duties required that they allow some vehicles to go through unchecked. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that the key issue in assessing the constitutionality of a checkpoint is whether officers used a uniform standard in conducting the checkpoint, and the court stated that neither a supervisor's approval nor written agency guidelines are constitutionally required. Of course, a law enforcement agency may require supervisory approval or adopt written guidelines as a matter of policy.
The United States Supreme Court in Prouse also indicated that it generally did not question the constitutionality of roadside truck weigh stations and inspection checkpoints. Although North Carolina courts have not decided this issue, courts in other jurisdictions have upheld the constitutionality of these activities.
Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina, 3rd edition, Robert L. Farb, pp. 30-31




This being said, driving on public highways is not a right. This is made apparent to you when you apply for an operator's license in North Carolina. Part of the requirements to maintain that privilege are that you show your license to any LEO who requests it when you are operating a motor vehicle. The USSC and the NC Apellate have upheld the contitutionality of these checkpoints, roadblocks, whatever you want to call them. That issue is therefore quite clear. If you don't like them, and believe me I have no problem with you not liking them, the only thing for it is to try to get Prouse overturned.
 

WTFOVER

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
111
Location
WNC
I'm not suggesting we give up on law enforcement, I would just like to feel perfectly free in this imperfect world

The problem is, you'll never been able to feel perfectly free in this country or any other country in the world. Short of buying your own island and setting your own rules it will just never happen.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Delaware vs. Prouse that the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers, acting on their own initiative, from randomly stopping vehicles for the sole purpose of checking whether the driver has a proper driver's license and a vehicle registration. Therefore officers ordinarily may not stop a vehicle unless they have at least reasonable sucpicion that a driver or occupant has committed or is committing a criminal offense (or infraction).
However, the Court indicated that a systematic roadblock type of stop to check licenses and registrations is permissible if all cars are stopped or if some patterned method of stopping (for example, every tenth car) is devised. North Carolina appellate courts have upheld driver's license checks in several cases decided since the Prouse ruling. Officers in these cases either obtained supervisory approval to conduct the checkpoint or followed their agency's written guidelines in conducting the checkpoint. They also checked every car that approached the checkpoint unless their law enforcement duties required that they allow some vehicles to go through unchecked. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that the key issue in assessing the constitutionality of a checkpoint is whether officers used a uniform standard in conducting the checkpoint, and the court stated that neither a supervisor's approval nor written agency guidelines are constitutionally required. Of course, a law enforcement agency may require supervisory approval or adopt written guidelines as a matter of policy.
The United States Supreme Court in Prouse also indicated that it generally did not question the constitutionality of roadside truck weigh stations and inspection checkpoints. Although North Carolina courts have not decided this issue, courts in other jurisdictions have upheld the constitutionality of these activities.
Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina, 3rd edition, Robert L. Farb, pp. 30-31

This being said, driving on public highways is not a right. This is made apparent to you when you apply for an operator's license in North Carolina. Part of the requirements to maintain that privilege are that you show your license to any LEO who requests it when you are operating a motor vehicle. The USSC and the NC Apellate have upheld the contitutionality of these checkpoints, roadblocks, whatever you want to call them. That issue is therefore quite clear. If you don't like them, and believe me I have no problem with you not liking them, the only thing for it is to try to get Prouse overturned.

Thank you. This is the first time I've got to check the board this morning but I was going to say something about Prouse case and the laws in NC reguarding SOP for checkpoints and you beat me to the punch.
 

Smith45acp

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
434
Location
NC
I know many courts have upheld checkpoints.

But I don't judge the constitutionality of something based solely on a court's decision, do you?
 

sultan62

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,311
Location
Clayton, NC
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Delaware vs. Prouse that the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers, acting on their own initiative, from randomly stopping vehicles for the sole purpose of checking whether the driver has a proper driver's license and a vehicle registration. Therefore officers ordinarily may not stop a vehicle unless they have at least reasonable sucpicion that a driver or occupant has committed or is committing a criminal offense (or infraction).
However, the Court indicated that a systematic roadblock type of stop to check licenses and registrations is permissible if all cars are stopped or if some patterned method of stopping (for example, every tenth car) is devised. North Carolina appellate courts have upheld driver's license checks in several cases decided since the Prouse ruling. Officers in these cases either obtained supervisory approval to conduct the checkpoint or followed their agency's written guidelines in conducting the checkpoint. They also checked every car that approached the checkpoint unless their law enforcement duties required that they allow some vehicles to go through unchecked. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that the key issue in assessing the constitutionality of a checkpoint is whether officers used a uniform standard in conducting the checkpoint, and the court stated that neither a supervisor's approval nor written agency guidelines are constitutionally required. Of course, a law enforcement agency may require supervisory approval or adopt written guidelines as a matter of policy.
The United States Supreme Court in Prouse also indicated that it generally did not question the constitutionality of roadside truck weigh stations and inspection checkpoints. Although North Carolina courts have not decided this issue, courts in other jurisdictions have upheld the constitutionality of these activities.
Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina, 3rd edition, Robert L. Farb, pp. 30-31




This being said, driving on public highways is not a right. This is made apparent to you when you apply for an operator's license in North Carolina. Part of the requirements to maintain that privilege are that you show your license to any LEO who requests it when you are operating a motor vehicle. The USSC and the NC Apellate have upheld the contitutionality of these checkpoints, roadblocks, whatever you want to call them. That issue is therefore quite clear. If you don't like them, and believe me I have no problem with you not liking them, the only thing for it is to try to get Prouse overturned.

I don't believe anyone here is debating whether or not it is a right - it clearly is not.

My statement was that it should be.

Furthermore, this is just an example of the big G once again saying, "It's not ok unless we say so" on the warrantless stops.
 

Kivuli

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
208
Location
North Carolina
But I don't judge the constitutionality of something based solely on a court's decision, do you?

As far as legal interpretation? Yes, I do. Do I necessarily agree with those decisions? In many cases no, I don't.

I don't believe anyone here is debating whether or not it is a right - it clearly is not.

My statement was that it should be.

Furthermore, this is just an example of the big G once again saying, "It's not ok unless we say so" on the warrantless stops.

Why should it be? The roads belong to the state (or in the case of the Interstate system, the federal government). You already have the right to drive whatever you want whenever and however you want on your own property. Why should you impose said will on property that isn't yours?

As for the "Big G" comment, I think you're projecting an awful lot of malice that isn't necessarily deserved. State, local, and (especially) Federal government is bloated, beaurocratic, and riddled with red tape and inefficiences. Is it a Machiavellian juggernaut? Not so much.

Believe me, I get where you're coming from. I don't like being inconvenienced by roadblocks any more than you do. The point I'm trying to make is that dumping unconstitutionality vitriol on the matter is not only ineffective at stopping them but also misguided. USSC interpretation is that they ARE constitutional. Or at least, not out of keeping with it. You don't have to agree, just work on changing it instead of railing against it is all I'm saying.
 

sultan62

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,311
Location
Clayton, NC
As far as legal interpretation? Yes, I do. Do I necessarily agree with those decisions? In many cases no, I don't.



Why should it be? The roads belong to the state (or in the case of the Interstate system, the federal government). You already have the right to drive whatever you want whenever and however you want on your own property. Why should you impose said will on property that isn't yours?

As for the "Big G" comment, I think you're projecting an awful lot of malice that isn't necessarily deserved. State, local, and (especially) Federal government is bloated, beaurocratic, and riddled with red tape and inefficiences. Is it a Machiavellian juggernaut? Not so much.

Believe me, I get where you're coming from. I don't like being inconvenienced by roadblocks any more than you do. The point I'm trying to make is that dumping unconstitutionality vitriol on the matter is not only ineffective at stopping them but also misguided. USSC interpretation is that they ARE constitutional. Or at least, not out of keeping with it. You don't have to agree, just work on changing it instead of railing against it is all I'm saying.

So you're saying that the road that is paid for by my income taxes and exorbitantly high gasoline taxes belongs to the government who took my money, but not to me?

Certainly, I don't have the right to drive on other private property, nor should I. However, public property that is paid for by me and everybody else? I absolutely should have that right.

As for malice of the government, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's no way you're convincing me on that one, and I'm not taking the time to try to convince you.
 

Kivuli

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
208
Location
North Carolina
So you're saying that the road that is paid for by my income taxes and exorbitantly high gasoline taxes belongs to the government who took my money, but not to me?

Certainly, I don't have the right to drive on other private property, nor should I. However, public property that is paid for by me and everybody else? I absolutely should have that right.

Nope. If you want to cash out, you can claim the few square feet of the road system that your personal taxes over the years has actually funded. Otherwise I'm not buying that line of thought. Build your own roads, accept the system we have, or create your own system and get it passed. If you have a better idea than the DoT we currently have, I and all of Raleigh am/are all ears.

As for malice of the government, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's no way you're convincing me on that one, and I'm not taking the time to try to convince you.

Fair enough.
 

smlawrence

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
261
Location
Colfax, NC
So I guess if I was to see a "Roadblock" up ahead and decide that I don't want to waste my time with sitting in line for a check of my license and make a perfectly legal U-Turn, they wouldn't pull me over and use my detour as reasonable doubt to pull me over and check my license?? I guess that would be perfectly legal for a LEO to do but then it wouldn't be a part of the "Roadblock" it would be a pull over and show me your papers stop, which would also not be legal, right?

Wasn't there a video posted on here in the past few months of a guy who drove through the same check a few times refusing to lower his window or show his license? I'll look for it as it was pretty funny but right at the same time.
 

sultan62

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,311
Location
Clayton, NC
Nope. If you want to cash out, you can claim the few square feet of the road system that your personal taxes over the years has actually funded. Otherwise I'm not buying that line of thought. Build your own roads, accept the system we have, or create your own system and get it passed. If you have a better idea than the DoT we currently have, I and all of Raleigh am/are all ears.

My mistake, I assumed a bit of common sense on your part.

I partially paid for the road. If I had completely paid for it, it would be my property and no one else's. I would have it all to myself, and would be the only car on the road at any given time.

However, let me explain it a little bit clearer for you:

My 'ownership' of my part of the public road system would allow me to use it, similar to now, without the license. If you'll recall, my original point was that we should have the right to drive on public roads without a license. That is my belief based upon two things:

1. I, as an American Citizen, have the right to travel without identifying myself to any government agent.

2. Driving an automobile is the most common and convenient form of transportation.

Which of these do you disagree with? Or is there something you believe I am overlooking.

Oh, and seeing as you like to make smart ass answers, let's also assume I am committing no crime, and have not committed any crime in the past that would necessitate me identifying myself.
 

chiefjason

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,025
Location
Hickory, NC, ,
For the supporters of these things, lets just cut to the chase and implement what they have in Australia. Any driver may be pulled over any time and be forced to endure a breath test. That's where this is headed. Sitz doesn't existing in a vacuum. It exists on a slippery slope and was itself a slide downward from an earlier time where probable cause was needed. So, lets just get it over with and go straight to random, completely unavoidable breath tests at the whim of whichever cop you happen to encounter.

How about this. Any driver can be pulled over and forced to endure a routine safety inspection on the side of the road or forced to drive out of their way to an official safety check station. Don't think it could happen? It already does with commercial vehicles. My last 2 stops were completely warrantless. The last one he actually told me so. "Sir, you've done nothing wrong I just want to perform a routine safety inspection." An hour later and a $166 ticket I was free to go. I found out later that the ticket was bogus too. He told me the trailer was out of inspection by 5 years, wrote it up as out for 6 months, and never even checked the actual inspection that was done 3 months ago. Yeah NCHP DOT!

DOT is becoming as bad as the ATF.

And what's up with this from that statute that was posted. Way to be clear on this subject! Where the bang your head on the desk smilie?

(2a) Operate under a written policy that provides guidelines for the pattern, which need not be in writing.
 

WTFOVER

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
111
Location
WNC
So I guess if I was to see a "Roadblock" up ahead and decide that I don't want to waste my time with sitting in line for a check of my license and make a perfectly legal U-Turn, they wouldn't pull me over and use my detour as reasonable doubt to pull me over and check my license?? I guess that would be perfectly legal for a LEO to do but then it wouldn't be a part of the "Roadblock" it would be a pull over and show me your papers stop, which would also not be legal, right?

Yes you can be stopped for making a u-turn at a checkpoint.

Wasn't there a video posted on here in the past few months of a guy who drove through the same check a few times refusing to lower his window or show his license? I'll look for it as it was pretty funny but right at the same time.

He can and should have been charged with GS 14-223 - Resisting Officers
 

WTFOVER

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
111
Location
WNC
(2a) Operate under a written policy that provides guidelines for the pattern, which need not be in writing.

As long as the department has a written policy for checkpoints then how many cars you stop, where you stop them, etc doesn't have to be in writing.
 
Top